1. 401

2. Ca-

4

1 22/100000/

: 65

5 :80-85%

3. ( FIGO )

Ia :

Ib : 50%

IIa :

IIB :

4. ( FIGO )

I a : / /

I b :

I c : /

IVa : /

IVB : /

5. 5 77% S1 G3 84% S1 G2 91% S1 G1 60% S3 15% S4 75% S2 90% S1 6.

Low risk : Ia grade 1-2 I bgrade 1

Intermediate risk : III

High risk :I IVa

IVB

7.

(>50%)

- V

LVI(+)

-

8.

50%

50%

9. 10. RT II 11. RT III RT III ? 12. 13. ()

.

( )

RT

RT, ,

14.

>95 %

I 82-98 %

II 68-93 %

RT III 15. S-RT S + RT Elliot,1994 15% 2,6% Carey, 1995 15% 4% Cadar, 1992 70% 33% Morrow, 1991 30% 15% 16. RT 17. 18.

Norwegian trial : Aalders, et al 1980

PORTEC : Creutzberg, et al 2000

GOG-99 : Roberts, et al 1998

ASTEC-EN.5 :ASCO Chicago June 2007

RT III 19. 20. 21. 22. T GOG&PORTEC RT RT P ostO perativeR adiationT herapy inE ndometrialC ancer 23. III

PORTEC study

715

TAH/BSO

IB G2-3,IC G1-2

- 4 6Gy

.

GOG 99 study

392

TAH/BSO &LNS

IB-IIB(G1-2)

-50.4Gy .

Creutzberg, Lancet 355, April, 2000 Keys, Gyn Onc 92, 744-751, 2004 24.

PORTEC study

IB39 %

Grade 1-290%

GOG 99 study

IB70%

Grade 1-282%

high risk 25. PORTEC (-) 10 RT : 14%vs RT :5% (p200 cGy

2 D

34. 2D 3D 35. ASTEC EN.5 STUDY 905 452 51% 453 52% 71% ATH BSO 29% ATH BSOPLN EN.5: July 1996- ASTEC: July 1998- 36. ASTEC EN.5 STUDY GRADE I GRAD II GRADE III O / ASTEC EN.5ASTEC EN.5 ASTEC EN.5 ASTEC EN.5 C ASTEC EN.5ASTEC EN.5ASTEC EN.5ASTEC EN.5 ASTEC EN.5ASTEC EN.5ASTEC EN.5ASTEC 37. ASTEC 5 : 8 5.6% vs8 5.4 % (p=0.98) 38. ASTEC : 82%vs79% (p=0.37) 39. ASTEC EN.5 STUDY 453 452 26% 60% ( 17%) ( 8%) (